Chamber and committees

I will ask one more question if I may, please, convener.

You mentioned the PIRC, and I wanted to ask you about concerns around the independence of the PIRC in relation to the number of ex-police officers in the organisation. You make a recommendation that it should be PIRC policy to replace former police officers with non-police officers on their retirement from the PIRC.

Do you think that the PIRC is truly independent from Police Scotland? Should the bill set out more about the formation of who makes up the PIRC? Again, we have heard some concerning evidence from witnesses about their experience with the PIRC—people have told us that they felt that the PIRC was covering their pals’ backs, if you know what I mean.

Obviously, the PIRC can investigate only senior officers, and Police Scotland investigates the level below that. We also heard concerns that, at that level, they were all pals together and the police would not be objective in the investigations. Is there anything that could be done about that?

I understand what you are saying. Is there a way that the process could be streamlined? That is what I am trying to get at. Is there any one thing that could happen that would be helpful to you, to witnesses and to complainers?

Did you say 19 days?

Therefore, your workload has increased considerably since the Angiolini review. Did you take on more staff to deal with that?

Thank you for that.

Sharon Clelland, are non-disclosure agreements routinely used in your work?

That is fine. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland already has responsibility for reviewing the policies and practice of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority and to co-ordinate that with the PIRC. Do you think that that whole arrangement is working well? Does anything need to be done legislatively to improve that?

What is the SPA’s role in that? Do you interact much with it? Where does it fit into the picture?

That was helpful. It seems to me that there are a lot of players; there are various organisations doing different things. Would not it be better for you to have all the investigatory work done when you are presented with a case, before you make the decision whether to prosecute? It seems to me that some has been done, but it is not completed, so then you do it. That is a bit cumbersome, is it not?

Good morning, Mr Farrell. My question, which follows on from what you have been discussing with the convener, relates to the timescale for deciding whether to prosecute. Witnesses have advised the committee that the length of time that that has taken has, in their eyes, been unacceptable, and that there was a shadow hanging over them for a long time.

Also the report by His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland said that the 12-week target for decision making

“is based on flawed data”

and that

“there is a lack of robust and accurate management information about CAAP-D’s work.”

I know that you will be aware of that report. Could you address that and the timescales involved, please?